PDA

View Full Version : Where Should Homer Start in 2006?



RedsIn07
12-30-2005, 01:55 AM
I think it might be an interesting conversation, make your decision and give reasoning for each, whether it's due to his performance last year or the coddle/challenge approach.

Some releavant info:
2005:

W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB SO
8 4 4.43 28 21 0 0 0 103.2 89 64 51 5 62 125

Weighted Park Factors
Posted by Cyclone in the ORG:

Team R H 2B HR BB SO
Cincinnati 1.02 1.00 1.04 1.16 0.96 1.02
Louisville 1.05 1.01 0.97 0.89 1.01 0.84
Chattanooga 1.17 1.13 1.03 1.21 1.13 1.02
Sarasota 0.94 0.95 1.06 0.61 1.09 1.02
Dayton 1.05 0.98 0.84 1.04 0.87 0.86

Ravenlord
12-30-2005, 02:09 AM
Sarasota.

reds44
12-30-2005, 02:28 AM
MLB!!!!!!!!!!!

;)

I went with the Noog.

KronoRed
12-30-2005, 05:58 AM
Sarasota

Take it SLOW.

fourrunhomer
12-30-2005, 10:43 AM
I say Sarasota to start out. If he is progressing well, Then move him to AA mid season. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not move this kid up too quickly and ruin him just because there is noone else. How often have the Reds done that the past 10 years?!

StillFunkyB
12-30-2005, 11:22 AM
Sarasota, the whole year.

NJReds
12-30-2005, 11:25 AM
I don't care where he is as long as he starts and they quit using him in tandem situations.

Red Leader
12-30-2005, 02:02 PM
Sarasota, the whole year.

I totally agree with you. He didn't exactly dominate at Dayton. He should not be moved any higher than Sarasota this year. He still has a lot to work on before advancing.

captainmorgan07
12-30-2005, 02:11 PM
sarasota see how he does then if he deserves to be moved up to AA send him up we dont' need anymore brian reith disasters on our hands

KoryMac5
12-30-2005, 02:27 PM
Sarasota and if he is overpowering than move him to double A Chattanooga. Be a nice reward for a great year. Definitely something for him to build on and look forward too.

deltachi8
12-30-2005, 02:31 PM
3rd barstool from the right at Moe's

or Sarasota, you pick the homer

StillFunkyB
12-30-2005, 05:57 PM
I really don't want to see HB anywhere near Cincinnati until Sept. 2008.

paulrichjr
01-05-2006, 02:11 AM
Top 100 MLB prospects for '06: 91-100
Story Tools: XML
Print Email Blog This
Dayn Perry / FOXSports.com
Posted: 7 hours ago



It's that time of year.

With the calendar flipped and the 2006 season sorta, kinda upon us, it's time to roll out our annual top 100 prospects list.
First, some parameters Ö No player who's previously exhausted his rookie status is eligible (i.e., no B.J. Upton or Felix Hernandez), and we're not including major league-ready imports like Kenji Johjima.

This week, we kick things off with numbers 91 through 100.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5220744

91. Homer Bailey, RHP, Reds, Age 21
Acquired: 1st round, 2004, La Grange HS (La Grange, TX)

Another in a long lineage of raw, fire-balling Texas right-handers, Bailey sports a mid-90s fastball and a hammer curve that wows scouts. The problem right now (as it is with most young hard throwers) is that his off-speed stuff leaves much to be desired. He's going to need that third pitch if he's to succeed as a starter at the highest level. The Reds are handling him carefully in terms of workload, which is a point in his favor, but he struggled badly with his control last season in the Midwest League. If Bailey stays healthy, harnesses his stuff and cultivates a deeper repertoire, he'll be a special pitcher. But those are a lot of "ifs."

westofyou
01-05-2006, 02:14 AM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4686
January 4, 2006
Breakout Prospects
Good Bets to Step Up in 2006

by Bryan Smith


Homer Bailey Ė SP Ė Cincinnati Reds Ė 20 (A+)


Level IP ERA H/9 K/9 BB/9 HR/9 G/F
A- 103.2 4.43 7.73 10.85 5.38 0.43 1.06

A year later, Iím still confused that the Brewers drafted Mark Rogers before Bailey. There had been a consensus among scouts that Bailey had better stuff, poise and control. This season, as many expected, Rogers struggled mightily, walking 70 in 98.2 innings.

What we didnít see coming, however, was control problems for Bailey. The Texan right-hander had been praised for his control in high school, as he walked less than 20 hitters during his senior season. However, this year he walked 62 batters in 103.2 innings. Furthermore, only six times Bailey gave up less than two walks. His presence on this list is predicated on the belief that with more experience and maturity, Homerís control will improve.

Even if there is not a significant improvement in control, Bailey could become a dominant reliever. His two-pitch combination ranks among the best in the minor leagues. He also gives up very few home runs--just 5 all season. In fact, in his last 12 appearances (spanning 45 innings), Bailey did not allow a single long ball. If control prevents a future in starting, you can bet he is the closer of the Reds future.

However, itís way too early to begin giving up on the notion of Bailey as a starter. At times, he can be dominant, and may have just reacted negatively to being coddled in 2005. The Reds will likely give Bailey a little more room to grow in 2006, and as a result, he should start to blossom.

The_jbh
01-05-2006, 03:16 AM
Sarasota, the whole year.

I dont really think you can go in with the mentality with any player. What happens if Homer goes through a half season of utterly dominating Single A? You still keep him where he isn't challenged? Personally i say sarasota until atleast June. If he is doing EXTREMELY well push him... if not leave him in Sarasota for another 2 months. If he is still posting sub 4 era, i give him a month or 2 Chattanooga otherwise keep him in Sarasota.


And I don't mind the tandem. I dont want to see any labrums or TJs on homer. We can't afford another gruler/howington/Basham/Pauly/Aramboles/etc.....

M2
01-05-2006, 03:38 AM
I dont really think you can go in with the mentality with any player. What happens if Homer goes through a half season of utterly dominating Single A? You still keep him where he isn't challenged? Personally i say sarasota until atleast June. If he is doing EXTREMELY well push him... if not leave him in Sarasota for another 2 months. If he is still posting sub 4 era, i give him a month or 2 Chattanooga otherwise keep him in Sarasota.


And I don't mind the tandem. I dont want to see any labrums or TJs on homer. We can't afford another gruler/howington/Basham/Pauly/Aramboles/etc.....

What happens if he tears it up? You smile, pat him on the back and show some maturity by not progressing until he falls apart, that's what you do.

If for once in a blue moon a Reds pitcher has an utterly dominating season, the organization should show the good sense to appreciate it without indulging the desperate, deep-seated, psycopathic urge to screw it up.

Any kid who's being asked to take a baseball and throw it past hitters on a consistent basis is being challenged. He's being challenged to remain consistent. He's being challenged to stay healthy. He's being challenged to fight off fatigue as the season wears on. He's being challenged to remain dominant after the league gets a few looks at him and readies itself for what he's bringing to table.

The job of the organization is to treat development like the long-term investment process it is and not react to every kid who does well like a lottery ticket that has to be cashed immediately.

TRF
01-05-2006, 12:05 PM
The Reds learned nothing by the gross overpromotion of Tyler Pelland. I voted for a repeat at Dayton, as he did not dominate the Midwest League. I'm hoping Pelland repeats at Sarasota too, as he barely held his own, but showed a lot of flashes and an ability to miss bats.

lollipopcurve
01-05-2006, 12:10 PM
This is a no-brainer. If they start him in AA, it'll be an ill-conceived attempt to display success in building the pitching resources from within.

Danny Serafini
01-05-2006, 12:27 PM
Having Bailey repeat at Dayton is like having a C student repeat the fourth grade. Sure, he'll do better, but what's he really gaining?

RedsManRick
01-05-2006, 12:36 PM
Certainly no higher than Sarasota given his control issues. That said, if he's very successful, he needs to move up to AA. We don't want him falling so in love with his stuff (because the A guys can't keep up with it) that he doesn't develop a 3rd pitch and refine his control.

TRF
01-05-2006, 12:43 PM
Having Bailey repeat at Dayton is like having a C student repeat the fourth grade. Sure, he'll do better, but what's he really gaining?

If he can't dominate the Midwest League, cut bait. I think he can, but he has to actually do it.

M2
01-05-2006, 12:52 PM
Certainly no higher than Sarasota given his control issues. That said, if he's very successful, he needs to move up to AA. We don't want him falling so in love with his stuff (because the A guys can't keep up with it) that he doesn't develop a 3rd pitch and refine his control.

That strikes me as exactly backwards. If you're developing a third pitch (not to mention trying to gain some modicum of control over the two pitches you have) aren't you more likely to throw it up against hitters who aren't as likely to mash it? In A ball a kid like Homer doesn't have to fear getting walloped for throwing a developing pitch anywhere near as much as he does in the high minors. Not only that, but he doesn't have to fear missing the strikezone with it as much either. So what if it's a free ball everytime he throws it on a given night, if he's able to dominate with his other two pitches (and that's no small if) then it gives him the leeway to work on the third pitch. In AA if he works into a hitter's count then he might not be able to trust the placement on curve as much and be forced to be too fine with his fastball. The higher the quality of the hitters you're facing, the less likely you are to throw a pitch in which you don't have a lot of confidence.

The point of the minors is development and a big part of development is giving kids (especially pitchers) the room to grow. You don't willy-nilly promote every pitcher who's having a big season. Pitchers should have big seasons. You want them to get used to that and to work from a position of strength rather than always forcing them to catch up to the curve. The Reds have tried the other route and it's done nothing but fail. Time to chuck a bad idea and replace it with a good one.

traderumor
01-05-2006, 01:06 PM
That strikes me as exactly backwards. If you're developing a third pitch (not to mention trying to gain some modicum of control over the two pitches you have) aren't you more likely to throw it up against hitters who aren't as likely to mash it? In A ball a kid like Homer doesn't have to fear getting walloped for throwing a developing pitch anywhere near as much as he does in the high minors. Not only that, but he doesn't have to fear missing the strikezone with it as much either. So what if it's a free ball everytime he throws it on a given night, if he's able to dominate with his other two pitches (and that's no small if) then it gives him the leeway to work on the third pitch. In AA if he works into a hitter's count then he might not be able to trust the placement on curve as much and be forced to be too fine with his fastball. The higher the quality of the hitters you're facing, the less likely you are to throw a pitch in which you don't have a lot of confidence.

The point of the minors is development and a big part of development is giving kids (especially pitchers) the room to grow. You don't willy-nilly promote every pitcher who's having a big season Pitchers should have big seasons. You want them to get used to that and to work from a position of strength rather than always forcing them to catch up to the curve. The Reds have tried the other route and it's done nothing but fail. Time to chuck a bad idea and replace it with a good one.

So true. Developing starting pitching is like cooking a pot roast. If you don't have time or patience, you can cook it a high temperature, get it done in about an hour, and have something available to eat. The problem is it will be tough as shoe leather, won't yield much juice, will still be a little bit pink inside but burnt to a crisp on the outside, and just won't taste very good. But if you put that baby in a slow cooker and cook it at a lower heat for several hours, man that baby will tender, juicy, be done just right both on the outside and on the inside. It will be some good eatin'. And the gravy, ummmm, ummmmm.

Of course, the Reds have tried to microwave their pot roast and the thing isn't even edible. And it wouldn't matter if it was a prime cut of meat, it still cannot be nuked. I think its time to pull the crock pot out of the attic.

M2
01-05-2006, 01:07 PM
If he can't dominate the Midwest League, cut bait. I think he can, but he has to actually do it.

I'm sympathetic to the notion. I voted the same way you did, though mostly to balance out what I figured would be the inevitable rush of folks who'd want to overpromote him because they never met a pitching prospect they didn't want to destroy with their affection.

For the record, I'd put him in Sarasota, not because I think he's particularly likely to click there (I'm on the fence regarding that point), but because it's where you can maximize his trade value. Ultimately Homer's value to the Reds might be in who he lands for the organization. Not that this is likely to happen, but say Johan Santana hit the market if the Twins unravel. The Reds could go all in with Homer, Kearns/Pena and some other stuff in that scenario.

TRF
01-05-2006, 01:26 PM
I'm sympathetic to the notion. I voted the same way you did, though mostly to balance out what I figured would be the inevitable rush of folks who'd want to overpromote him because they never met a pitching prospect they didn't want to destroy with their affection.

For the record, I'd put him in Sarasota, not because I think he's particularly likely to click there (I'm on the fence regarding that point), but because it's where you can maximize his trade value. Ultimately Homer's value to the Reds might be in who he lands for the organization. Not that this is likely to happen, but say Johan Santana hit the market if the Twins unravel. The Reds could go all in with Homer, Kearns/Pena and some other stuff in that scenario.

I see your point, but you made the same case for Pelland that I did for having him repeat Dayton for the same reason: If he's lights out there, it doesmaximize his trade value. If he struggles in Sarasota like Pelland did, and they seem to have similar control issues with electric arms, then all you do is hurt his value, and possibly over-promote to the point of ruining the kid.

I can wait for Homer. In fact I can wait for who Homer might bring. But I bet he fetches more with an era below 3.00 than another 4+ job he did last year. He can miss bats on the weaker hitters, but he needs to miss bats on the good hitters at low A too.

IslandRed
01-05-2006, 01:33 PM
The point of the minors is development and a big part of development is giving kids (especially pitchers) the room to grow. You don't willy-nilly promote every pitcher who's having a big season. Pitchers should have big seasons. You want them to get used to that and to work from a position of strength rather than always forcing them to catch up to the curve. The Reds have tried the other route and it's done nothing but fail. Time to chuck a bad idea and replace it with a good one.

So true. For so long, the Reds have had an organizational pitching philosophy all but indistinguishable from the Peter Principle. How's that been working out, guys?

M2
01-05-2006, 01:36 PM
I see your point, but you made the same case for Pelland that I did for having him repeat Dayton for the same reason: If he's lights out there, it doesmaximize his trade value. If he struggles in Sarasota like Pelland did, and they seem to have similar control issues with electric arms, then all you do is hurt his value, and possibly over-promote to the point of ruining the kid.

I can wait for Homer. In fact I can wait for who Homer might bring. But I bet he fetches more with an era below 3.00 than another 4+ job he did last year. He can miss bats on the weaker hitters, but he needs to miss bats on the good hitters at low A too.

True, though Pelland bombed low A his first time there. Homer only struggled. If I were the farm director, what I'd want to hear from the people arguing for Sarasota is that they're willing to put their own butts on the line and guarantee that Homer will thrive in Sarasota, not giving a repeat performace of what we saw last season in Dayton.

TRF
01-05-2006, 01:51 PM
agreed on that. Wasn't one of the reasons for promoting Pelland so he could work with Verne at Sarasota? I really hope he repeats High A. Pelland did do very well at Billings though, so he has at least had a taste of success. Bailey has yet to sip from that cup.

I think if Bailey Repeats at Dayton and utterly dominates it, GM's will be beating the door down to get him.

Which of course means the reds will make him untouchable... and wrongly so.

Betterread
01-05-2006, 02:37 PM
I voted for High A, however I think that his spring training performance should (and will) be the context for his assignment. Let's see what shape he shows up in, and how flexible and strong his right arm is after a winter of no competition. If he's healthy, he has the stuff and the high expectations to be challenge him with a one-level promotion to high A.
I recognize the arguments for "coddling" a pitcher, but do you think that any healthy man, especially a young competitive athlete, enjoys and thrives on "coddling"?
I know that when I did well in sports as a youth, I wanted the recognition of that performance. I know I was not alone, because nearly all boys play baseball, but only some make HS varsity, and even fewer get drafted by a pro organization. The number of boys that tryout for a baseball team is substantially higher when they are 13, 14 than 16, 17. Why is that? Because most kids quit because they see repeatedly see recognition go to someone else.
I'm not saying that treating some players carefully is not a good idea. I'm saying that this approach works for some players and personalities, but not for others.
I think this approach is appropriate for Valiquette, Gonzalez, Wood and Terrell Young. I don't think it is suitable for Bailey and Bruce.

M2
01-05-2006, 02:53 PM
I voted for High A, however I think that his spring training performance should (and will) be the context for his assignment. Let's see what shape he shows up in, and how flexible and strong his right arm is after a winter of no competition. If he's healthy, he has the stuff and the high expectations to be challenge him with a one-level promotion to high A.
I recognize the arguments for "coddling" a pitcher, but do you think that any healthy man, especially a young competitive athlete, enjoys and thrives on "coddling"?
I know that when I did well in sports as a youth, I wanted the recognition of that performance. I know I was not alone, because nearly all boys play baseball, but only some make HS varsity, and even fewer get drafted by a pro organization. The number of boys that tryout for a baseball team is substantially higher when they are 13, 14 than 16, 17. Why is that? Because most kids quit because they see repeatedly see recognition go to someone else.
I'm not saying that treating some players carefully is not a good idea. I'm saying that this approach works for some players and personalities, but not for others.
I think this approach is appropriate for Valiquette, Gonzalez, Wood and Terrell Young. I don't think it is suitable for Bailey and Bruce.

Frankly, I think young athletes will do just fine moving one level per year while straining at the bit to move faster. Using your HS analogy, Homer's a middle schooler who won't be ready for the varsity for years. He'll just have to settle for stardom in Babe Ruth ball in the meantime (provided he achieves that). Ideally you want him walking into the majors someday feeling like he's ready to conquer the world. So far he hasn't conquered anything in the pros and that's why I don't think it would be all that outlandish to send him back to Dayton until he kicks that level in the pants, though I'm leaning Sarasota for him.

It's fine to want recognition for when you've performed, but Homer didn't really perform that well. He teased that brighter days may be ahead, but he put too many people on base and allowed too many of them to score.

I agree that ST should be the determining factor on his placement (though there isn't a force in the universe that could get me to place him above Sarasota). And if the judgment coming from the development staff is that you're likely to get more of the same from him in Sarasota as you got in Dayton in 2005, then I'd be all for sending him to Dayton with the message that he'll get to Sarasota after his MWL victory tour -- we'll recognize it when you do it.

RedsManRick
01-05-2006, 03:07 PM
M2, I think you overlooked my conditional. Homer should only move up to AA during 2006 IF he's dominating high A. This doesn't mean another 4.00 ERA. This means a 4-1 K/BB ratio, 10+ K/IP, and a 2.50 ERA -- you get the idea. I doubt that will happen.

My point was that we don't want him developing a 3rd pitch and simultaneously losing the refined edge on his fastball and curve because he can do whatever he wants with them. You don't want to push him so fast that he loses confidence, but letting him cruise completely at high A while he's working on a change seems a bit like a wasted year.

I honestly think he should be in high A the whole year and be armed with a solid 3rd pitch to take to Chatanooga in 2007. But if in July he's dominating high A and showing great control, I don't think he needs to stay there just because he's working on that changeup. I agree that you don't just promote somebody just b/c of a big year. Brian Reith agrees with you as well. However, if a prospect isn't being challenged, he's also likely not developing as much as he could be and very well could be developing bad habits. We don't want Bailey thinking he can get by on 95 mph heaters down the middle everytime he's in a bad spot just because his A ball counterparts can't catch up to it. I realize he's not there yet -- but he's got such great stuff, that it could happen very quickly.

M2
01-05-2006, 03:25 PM
M2, I think you overlooked my conditional. Homer should only move up to AA during 2006 IF he's dominating high A. This doesn't mean another 4.00 ERA. This means a 4-1 K/BB ratio, 10+ K/IP, and a 2.50 ERA -- you get the idea. I doubt that will happen.

My point was that we don't want him developing a 3rd pitch and simultaneously losing the refined edge on his fastball and curve because he can do whatever he wants with them. You don't want to push him so fast that he loses confidence, but letting him cruise completely at high A while he's working on a change seems a bit like a wasted year.

I honestly think he should be in high A the whole year and be armed with a solid 3rd pitch to take to Chatanooga in 2007. But if in July he's dominating high A and showing great control, I don't think he needs to stay there just because he's working on that changeup. I agree that you don't just promote somebody just b/c of a big year. Brian Reith agrees with you as well. However, if a prospect isn't being challenged, he's also likely not developing as much as he could be and very well could be developing bad habits. We don't want Bailey thinking he can get by on 95 mph heaters down the middle everytime he's in a bad spot just because his A ball counterparts can't catch up to it. I realize he's not there yet -- but he's got such great stuff, that it could happen very quickly.

Oh, I caught your conditional. I just don't buy into it. Like I said earlier in this thread, you're developing every time they stick a ball in your hand and send you to the mound. Consistency, health, fatigue, hitters who've got a book on you now, that's all there if a dominating pitcher sticks around to finish out the season in the league where he started.

I also don't worry about great pitches developing into bad habits. The key is to throw the great pitch where you want it. If you can dominate hitters in the middle of the zone, that also gives you leeway to refine your control around the edges, to experiment with different ways of working hitters.

Plus, you know what happens if a pitcher eats a league alive for a full season? His trade value shoots through the roof and he gives the entire systems a flattering spotlight. I'm not saying the Reds should be looking to trade Bailey no matter what, but options are a nice to have. We've seen what no options and constantly undercutting your prospects' trade value nets you.

To me, the urge to promote a dominating young pitcher in midseason is kind of like finding a gorgeous woman who's intelligent, funny and a good person and then you go looking for an upgrade. Allow something good to happen for once and see where it takes you.

paulrichjr
01-05-2006, 03:34 PM
A little off of the subject but...

In my earlier post from the Top 100 prospects list, Homer was number 91. That is kind of scary looking back on it since he is considered by some to be our number 1 or 2 best prospect. Does that mean we can expect one more guy in the top 100? If so we really are in trouble aren't we?

Anyone want to guess who the top ones will be?

RedsManRick
01-05-2006, 03:44 PM
Oh, I caught your conditional. I just don't buy into it. Like I said earlier in this thread, you're developing every time they stick a ball in your hand and send you to the mound. Consistency, health, fatigue, hitters who've got a book on you now, that's all there if a dominating pitcher sticks around to finish out the season in the league where he started.

I also don't worry about great pitches developing into bad habits. The key is to throw the great pitch where you want it. If you can dominate hitters in the middle of the zone, that also gives you leeway to refine your control around the edges, to experiment with different ways of working hitters.

Plus, you know what happens if a pitcher eats a league alive for a full season? His trade value shoots through the roof and he gives the entire systems a flattering spotlight. I'm not saying the Reds should be looking to trade Bailey no matter what, but options are a nice to have. We've seen what no options and constantly undercutting your prospects' trade value nets you.

To me, the urge to promote a dominating young pitcher in midseason is kind of like finding a gorgeous woman who's intelligent, funny and a good person and then you go looking for an upgrade. Allow something good to happen for once and see where it takes you.


Fair enough. In Bailey's case I really agree with your assessment. At his age and experience level, a full year in high A is certainly called for. I suppose my thought is more with that guy who's say 22-23 and not going to gain anything by blowing away his competition.

M2
01-05-2006, 03:59 PM
Fair enough. In Bailey's case I really agree with your assessment. At his age and experience level, a full year in high A is certainly called for. I suppose my thought is more with that guy who's say 22-23 and not going to gain anything by blowing away his competition.

In that case, I'd agree with you. Age and experience are critical factors in this mix.

Falls City Beer
01-05-2006, 06:17 PM
I'd say if you're sweating the details of a jump between low-A and high-A, then you probably don't have much of a prospect to begin with. Prospects kick doors down.

I'm with M2, polish this turd up and use him for trade bait before he's worthless.

TRF
01-05-2006, 07:00 PM
I'd say if you're sweating the details of a jump between low-A and high-A, then you probably don't have much of a prospect to begin with. Prospects kick doors down.

I'm with M2, polish this turd up and use him for trade bait before he's worthless.

And I think the polish will shine brighter blowing away guys in the Midwest league.

Falls City Beer
01-05-2006, 07:05 PM
And I think the polish will shine brighter blowing away guys in the Midwest league.

I'd like the guy to blow anyone away. I suppose the odds are better that he'd do that at low-A.

Patrick Bateman
01-05-2006, 09:51 PM
I say Sarasota to start out. If he is progressing well, Then move him to AA mid season. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not move this kid up too quickly and ruin him just because there is noone else. How often have the Reds done that the past 10 years?!

Probably never.

I can't think of one stud pitcher we've moved too quickly.

I can't think of too many stud pitchers we've had to be honest.

M2
01-05-2006, 11:41 PM
Probably never.

I can't think of one stud pitcher we've moved too quickly.

I can't think of too many stud pitchers we've had to be honest.

Ty Howington got two promotions in 2001 at age 21. He was well-regarded at the time and then he blew up. Ricardo Aramboles was pitching in AA at age 20. Dustin Moseley got mid-season promotions in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Josh Hall got 44 IP in high A before he got yanked up to AA. Chris Gruler went from high school to A ball with only a quick stop in Billings. Ryan Wagner was in the majors the year he got drafted. Richie Gardner was in AA his first season in pro ball. Tyler Pelland's been overpromoted twice. If someone can explain to me what business Rafael Gonzalez and Philippe Valiquette had in Dayton last year I'm all ears. Calvin Medlock did well in Dayton in early 2004 and he got promoted. That's just off the top of my head.

Pretty much every top arm the Reds have had in recent years has been overpromoted. Were any of them studs in the making? Probably not, but overzealous promotions certainly didn't help. For sure it eroded their trade value, preventing the Reds from cashing them in.

rdiersin
01-06-2006, 11:22 AM
Ty Howington got two promotions in 2001 at age 21. He was well-regarded at the time and then he blew up. Ricardo Aramboles was pitching in AA at age 20. Dustin Moseley got mid-season promotions in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Josh Hall got 44 IP in high A before he got yanked up to AA. Chris Gruler went from high school to A ball with only a quick stop in Billings. Ryan Wagner was in the majors the year he got drafted. Richie Gardner was in AA his first season in pro ball. Tyler Pelland's been overpromoted twice. If someone can explain to me what business Rafael Gonzalez and Philippe Valiquette had in Dayton last year I'm all ears. Calvin Medlock did well in Dayton in early 2004 and he got promoted. That's just off the top of my head.

Pretty much every top arm the Reds have had in recent years has been overpromoted. Were any of them studs in the making? Probably not, but overzealous promotions certainly didn't help. For sure it eroded their trade value, preventing the Reds from cashing them in.


I would agree with most of your post M2, but why add Richie Gardner? He performed very well in high A, then continued to perform well in AA, and basically followed the career path of most polished college pitchers. Yea, he did get injured this year, but I would think it is a tough argument to make that he was injured because he was overpromoted.

M2
01-06-2006, 01:14 PM
I would agree with most of your post M2, but why add Richie Gardner? He performed very well in high A, then continued to perform well in AA, and basically followed the career path of most polished college pitchers. Yea, he did get injured this year, but I would think it is a tough argument to make that he was injured because he was overpromoted.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. When you break it down to individual cases the cause and effect of overpromotion and injury is always a question mark. Yet we know what the organizational practice has been and we know about the injuries.

Thom Pauly wasn't promoted in 2004 and he blew up too. Clearly not promoting a guy isn't a panacea. Gardner's promotion bothered me less than others though I still thought it was unnecessary. Think about it, you take a kid just as he's approaching the 100 IP wall and you "challenge" him. Gardner was entering virgin territory in terms of his workload, that should have been challenge enough. Did he tweak himself digging for something extra to get out a higher level of hitter when he was feeling the strain of 156 IP season? We'll never know. My take is why risk it in the first place?

rdiersin
01-06-2006, 02:36 PM
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. When you break it down to individual cases the cause and effect of overpromotion and injury is always a question mark. Yet we know what the organizational practice has been and we know about the injuries.

Thom Pauly wasn't promoted in 2004 and he blew up too. Clearly not promoting a guy isn't a panacea. Gardner's promotion bothered me less than others though I still thought it was unnecessary. Think about it, you take a kid just as he's approaching the 100 IP wall and you "challenge" him. Gardner was entering virgin territory in terms of his workload, that should have been challenge enough. Did he tweak himself digging for something extra to get out a higher level of hitter when he was feeling the strain of 156 IP season? We'll never know. My take is why risk it in the first place?

Why risk it in the first place? To see what you have. In the case of a polished college pitcher, It is difficult to see what the organization has until they reach AA. Anytime a player moves up a league, there is risk, whether mid-season or the next year.

I'm not trying to disagree with your thesis here. I have no problem with giving a player a full year and working on things, and in the case of Homer, it is important that he does have a full year in high A to work on his control and third pitch. I am just not sure if the problem with Reds pitching prospects in the past has been that they were being promoted. Other organizations are far more aggressive, but their pitchers don't seem to get injured. The Twins organization does this very well. They have a good track record at keeping pitchers healthy, as of late, but they also are pretty aggressive promoting players, Liriano for one. The key seems to be that they are able to develop and teach their pitchers. Also they are good at identifying talent, and knowing their personel. Something the Reds are not known for.

Mr Red
01-06-2006, 02:42 PM
No need to rush....we not going anywhere this year...maybe not even next year. If we are patient we might finally have the ACE we need in about 3 years. You gotta love the fact that he only gave up 5HR's in 100+IP.

M2
01-06-2006, 03:19 PM
Why risk it in the first place? To see what you have. In the case of a polished college pitcher, It is difficult to see what the organization has until they reach AA. Anytime a player moves up a league, there is risk, whether mid-season or the next year.

I'm not trying to disagree with your thesis here. I have no problem with giving a player a full year and working on things, and in the case of Homer, it is important that he does have a full year in high A to work on his control and third pitch. I am just not sure if the problem with Reds pitching prospects in the past has been that they were being promoted. Other organizations are far more aggressive, but their pitchers don't seem to get injured. The Twins organization does this very well. They have a good track record at keeping pitchers healthy, as of late, but they also are pretty aggressive promoting players, Liriano for one. The key seems to be that they are able to develop and teach their pitchers. Also they are good at identifying talent, and knowing their personel. Something the Reds are not known for.

You know what you have. It's not like Gardner was going to change when you sent him to AA. And you needing him to succeed at AA shouldn't be the controlling issue. It's not like he was ticketed for the majors in 2005, so you can afford a little patience.

You mentioned knowing your personnel and I think that's a key. Organizations that I see doing things right take some time to get to know their pitchers before they start in with the promotions. They only move the superhumans quickly (e.g. Dontrelle Willis). The Braves tend to let pitchers spend a whole year in low A and a whole year in high A. Then they get agressive. Now, they tend to start with younger pitchers and that certainly has something to do with it, but they also reap the benefits of that patient approach as they've always got some hot kid arms to deal. The Twins have been a little willy-nilly for my tastes. I think they pushed J.D. Durbin too fast and Francisco Liriano probably needs a year or two to catch up to his promise. Meanwhile, they're on the verge of having something special with Adam Harben who's been moving slowly. To their credit, they've kept their arms mostly healthy.

Now, does overpromotion directly cause arm injuries? It can't help. We know that young pitchers try to reach back for pitches their bodies aren't built to throw when they get in tight spots. I submit one of the reasons the Reds seem to have been hit extra hard with the arm injury bug is because they wildly overpromote. First off, they haven't had any megatalents. No Reds prospect has walked in and just owned opposing hitters for the get-go (perhaps Travis Wood will change that, but we won't know until this summer). Second, more than other organizations the Reds seem to seek out a pitcher's drowning point. Gardner's a mild case, but some of the others I mentioned were just insane. I remember in 2003 when Ty Howington put together a good month in Potomac and then started to show some signs of fatigue (struggling after longer outings), the Reds yanked him up to Chattanooga where he got starched and then his arm blew up. That pretty much finished him. He's thrown all of five live innings since then (in the GCL last season). You look back on it now and it's hard to imagine what they could have been thinking at the time. So I think it's been a case of taking kids who needed protection and pushing them way too far, way too often.

It's not something you can ever prove since we don't have microbots in a pitcher's arm relaying us information about exactly when the contraption goes kerplooey, but when your results have been as bad as the Reds I think it's fair to assert that a wholesale change in your approach is in order.

TRF
01-06-2006, 04:09 PM
outstanding post M2. And one that is hard to argue against. Pushing a kid to AA before he is ready. Coulda woulda shoulda rotation at AAA this year: Howington, Aramboles, AA: Gardner, Pauly, and Gruler.

5 arm injuries that can at least partly be blamed on overpromotion and an overall lack of planning when it comes to development of pitching that spans 2 FO's and 2 owners.

The_jbh
01-07-2006, 03:35 AM
I would agree with most of your post M2, but why add Richie Gardner? He performed very well in high A, then continued to perform well in AA, and basically followed the career path of most polished college pitchers. Yea, he did get injured this year, but I would think it is a tough argument to make that he was injured because he was overpromoted.


All those guys also got injured. I am not saying we shouldn't learn from the past but you have to give a kid incentive to perform. I'm not saying Homer dominates (2.5 era good control etc...) for 2 months and send him to AA. I'm talking All-Star break which is a good 3/5 of the minor league season. And i am talking dominate. Just because guys have busted in the past doesn't mean you should hold a guy back. I sincerely doubt this is even going to be an issue because i dont see bailey utterly dominating Sarasota but if he does you have to atleast look into giving him 5-7 starts in AA.

It's kinda like a girl, if you've gotten burnt in the past, do you not let yourself get attatched again in order to not get burnt again?